Dear colleagues;
Recently, github has offered an open source license chooser for the project
owners. It aims of simplifying the selection of an appropriate license. This
tool was well appreciated -- not only by this OSI mailing list.
As a large company in Germany, we also acclaim the existence
Hi,
I am sending this to both FSF and OSI people. Please tolerate
my use of the various terms interchangeably, I know the various rules
but I am talking to two different communities, if at all possible
please permit me to skip the I don't like your choice of terms
lecture.
I have
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
All the FSF will say about it is that if and when the program becomes
free software,
Hi fred
I think what you are asking for guidance on, is outside the mandate of osi,
and fsf too. The time delayed license should of
On 14 Aug 2013 19:24, fred trotter fred.trot...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am sending this to both FSF and OSI people. Please tolerate
my use of the various
Sorry for accidental sending...
The time delayed license should of course be an osi approved one, and
preferably one of the commonly used ones: gpl, bsd, and so on... The
licenses are what they are and there isn't much to discuss there, you just
pick one.
How you intend to write your proprietary
Fred Trotter wrote:
First, I would like for the OSI and FSF people on this list to consider
some kind of new status for a license, like OSI tolerated
or OSI Not Open Source But It Doesn't Suck , or
Not Free Software but tolerated for this purpose or something like.
Hi Fred,
I actually like
FT,
Unfortunately the open source world has not been very amenable to things
that stray beyond the scope of fairly narrow definitions of open source.
Thus we have nothing equivalent to Creative Commons for software that
would cover not just CC-BY and CC-BY-SA but also NC, ND and in your case
some
The mandate for this list is facilitate constructive discussion of open
source licensing and further the goals of the OSI.
Your argument is that this list only exists to determine whether a given
license meets the definition of Open Source, and then only discuss it if it
meets that definition. You
[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
I actually like the Ghostscript/Aladdin license, which was essentially
Richard Stallman wrote:
I considered it a problematical compromise. At least it gave us free
software after a year.
Precisely my point: FOSS is better late than never.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:r...@gnu.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Whatever the truth of the adage may be, the point for us is that none
of this has anything to do with licensing. Fred Trotter was actually
asking a question, to which the correct answer is: You don't need a
license to make something free software at a certain date in the
future. Giving a copy to
I am deciding between an amended MIT, amended BSD and SQLite with
exception licenses for my web application and its associated backend
platform.
What are your thoughts on the existence and wording of an endorsement
clause?
Here is what I am thinking, if I choose to amend the BSD license:
12 matches
Mail list logo
